Carrying capacity rears its ugly head again. About time. More of the world needs to think the impact of its pleasure seeking. Gotta say this, though: the contention that “ecotourism is a blatant contradiction in terms” is deeply misguided (and misguiding).

QUESTION 3: We're loving the general sense of optimism and accomplishment, all despite agreement that there's a long road ahead. But let's get specific. Rather than just agreeing in general terms that there's still much left to be done, let's get a sense of what that is.

One idea: During the #RTTC Twitter chat, @jmcsmith mentioned his early efforts at assembling a curated directory of vetted and approved animal-friendly operators/suppliers/retailers. How could we really make this happen?

QUESTION 2: Let's go where @StuartButler2 has taken us: When is it OK to "exploit" animals?

While it's admirable to believe that animals should only be observed in the wild, is there ever a long-term justification for something like (good) zoos and (ethical) animal parks? Would today's generation of conservationists and animal-rights campaigners be who they are without them? Would some animal species have been lost?

And, if unnatural interactions are OK, how do we decide what's good and what's bad? Would there be different rules for different species? And who would arbitrate?

@dtravelsround What if Facebook, Twitter and others were petitioned to take a stand on unbecoming behavior with animals? I'd have to check, but I imagine that there are strict rules, with filters in place, about sharing pornography. Or showing videos of rape or murder. Why can't we get confirmed animal abuses -- benign though they might seem -- classed as unconscionable too?

Yeah, pie-in-the-sky thinking. And the social media behemoths have proven that they're rarely to be cowed by public opinion. But if we're talking about reaching the masses with the right messages, it's perhaps an interesting avenue.

Or maybe it's been tried before but has never broken into the mainstream (media or public eye). Does anyone know?

Key considerations, @vickysmith. An important broader take on my interjection above about the push and pull of supply and demand.

What's clear is that we're looking at a complex situation. It isn't just about Mr, Ms or Mx Ethical Traveler making the right choices, or about the far-sighted business choosing a path of principled (and perhaps considerable) resistance. There are whole supply chains impacting local economies where ethics are hardly primary concerns. These are places where people don't always have the luxury of choosing between the wrong path (paying for tonight's dinner) and right one (preserving the species that will pay for the livelihoods of the generations they can't imagine without tonight's dinner).

@bemusedbackpack I heartily applaud your optimism. It's critical when fighting an uphill battle. I too see the good stuff out there: governments (finally!) changing domestic policy to fall in line with the international conventions they've signed; high-profile unnecessary animal slaughter churning up public anxiety and prompting change; celebrities using their influence and social clout to mobilize the otherwise unmotivated.

But, in keeping with the worry at the root of the question: Are the messages sinking in and making an impact where it counts?

While a broader American and European public is discovering it has a conscience, are we reaching the people of China and Vietnam who are driving today's out-of-control craze for animal parts? Are we getting through to enough local villagers (the means-deprived resource-poor farmers employed by unscrupulous crime syndicates) in Africa and Asia to have sufficient eyes, ears and patrols on the ground? Do we have the right kind of policy and enforcement in kleptocratic countries where, sadly, the earth's most iconic wildlife is being slaughtered?

Alas, I don't think we do. For every high-minded journalist/blogger who preaches conservation, there are dozens (hundreds?) of subsistence agriculturalists and virility-seeking fools pursuing ends without pondering the means. For every principled tour operator taking a public stand on ethical change, there is a handful who willfully flaunt best practices.

@bemusedbackpack Yes, the essential point for me here is that supply does sometimes create demand.

That's what I argued yesterday during the #RTTC chat.

I agree that the flow is usually in the other direction -- that demand fuels supply -- but I think that's more in the beginning. Way back when, someone noticed that travelers love to connect with animals, so he/she created a means to do so, not thinking about the welfare of the animals.

But now I can't help thinking that we're in supply-driven times, where prospective travelers see evidence of people connecting with animals and they want to do the same thing.

So while we definitely have to nip the bud on the demand side, we also need to stop supplying product. It is false for operators to claim that they'll stop providing product when there's no more demand; they have to stop feeding the demand to staunch the appetite!

QUESTION 1: The uphill battle to shift consumer awareness about animal exploitation in tourism is daunting. Are there signs from which to take hope? Are the messages sinking in and making an impact where it counts? Or is demand for unnatural animal activities just as high as ever?

In advance of our first question in this discussion, I'd like to thank everyone who takes part in this discussion, especially the expert hosts named at the end of the opening statement above. We hope to identify some of the many challenges on the road to animal welfare in and through tourism. We're also very keen to lift out real solutions to some of the more intractable problems, so let's work toward identifying a productive way forward.

And so... onward! I will share the first question here right at the end of the first #RTTC session. That will be just before 7am GMT/UTC.

Before we get to that first question, though, I hope you will take part in one of the two #RTTC Twitter chats starting at 6am and 6pm (GMT/UTC) today, Wednesday, August 12. The topic: #WorldElephantDay and animal welfare.

Here is a very, very interesting comment, lifted from the Facebook page of @StuartButler2, a longtime travel writer and Lonely Planet author who has covered large parts of Africa and spent May-June 2015 walking through Kenya's Maasai lands (see walkingwiththemaasai.com). I reproduce it here in full, without edits or commentary.

Sorry this is a bit of a long one. Cecil the lion and the dentist that shot him have been causing headlines around the world and a social media tornado. I’ve found this completely shocking. When thousands of people die in unrest in CAR or millions loose their lives in the wars of Congo nobody really says much. Why is this? The large animal rights organisation PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have made an official statement calling for the hunter to be executed (read it here: http://www.peta.org/blog/cecils-death-prompts-call-to-ban-trophy-hunt-imports-to-u-s/) which seems a little ironic for a group valuing all life… This is a group that has many very vocal ‘celebrity’ supporters. Does this mean that people like Ricky Gervais, Russel Brand and Kate Winslett (among many others) are calling for his death too?

I’m not saying I support the dentist and his guides (I don’t). Emotionally I am totally against hunting of all types (including fishing which many who are vocal against big game hunting seem to do without problem), but the key is to think about this issue without emotion. I think the dentist is an idiot and I truly do not understand why anyone would want to shoot a lion or any other such thing. However, the issue of hunting in Africa is not as black and white as people like PETA and most of the media make out and I think it's worth people keeping in mind that, when done properly, hunting can play a very important role in African (and potentially elsewhere but I only know about East Africa and so will only talk about that area) conservation.

This was an exceptional case in that the lion appears to have been baited out of a national park and the money he paid likely went straight into the pockets of his guides. There’s no excusing this and they should stand trial for this (but death seems a little over the top). But, right or wrong, the sad reality of the world is that everything has to have a financial value. And that includes land in Africa and the wildlife that lives upon it. So, let’s say you're a large landowner or a collective of villagers with communally owned land. That land has to pay its way because you need to feed your children. You essentially have three options.

Firstly, you turn the land over to agriculture or large scale ranching. In that case lions, elephants and many other animals (and with agriculture almost all animals) are bad news so you need to get rid of them (just as many of you do by putting slug repellent around your lettuces). This is clearly bad for all but a few species of animals.

Option two - you turn your land over to photographic safari tourism. This is the ideal. The animals and land are paying their way and you get to make a living. However, there's a catch. Safari tourism like this is very expensive and only the elite can afford to visit such places (generally these are known as conservancies or something along those lines and they operate a little like private national parks). This means that due to the expense there's only a limited number of people on the planet who can afford, and are willing, to visit such places so therefore only a limited number of such places can afford to exist. Also, tourism is very up and down in particular in Africa. Ebola and security issues in Kenya have brought the conservancies there to their financial knees.

This leaves you with option 3. Leave your land for the wildlife and instead of more temperamental photo tourism turn it over to hunting tourism. As the land owner thinking of a long term business you would only allow a limited and sustainable number of lion/buffalo or whatever to be hunted each year. Hunters pay a lot of money for the right to hunt plus they pay a lot for accommodation and all the rest. One hunter generates much more money than one photographic safari tourist. Not just that but hunters aren't afraid to go to areas where the security situation might be more sketchy (CAR and Chad for example where large tracts of land are being used as hunting preserves). Hunters are also happy to go to areas of woodland and scrub which photo tourists, because of reduced visibility, won't. Yes, I know a few lion get shot and that's terrible but in return that whole chunk of land and all the other animals on it gets protected. If hunting didn't happen there then that land would most likely have far less wildlife on it. People think emotionally about hunting. One thing that people in the west (and increasingly in urban Africa) get confused about is the difference between animal rights and conservation. There is sometimes (not always) a huge difference. Animal rights groups pull at your heart strings showing images of orphaned elephants or hunters standing over a lion, but they're not always telling the full story. People automatically tend to think hunting is bad but done right it has the potential to safeguard large chunks of land (and this case appears not to have been done right) and in many ways hunting might be one of the aspects that helps to keep wildlife in Africa surviving. No doubt people will turn around now and call me a cruel murderer because I won't condone the hunting of large animals in Africa but just think about it without emotion clouding your vision.

@hitriddle Believing that canned hunting is good for conservation is about as logical as supporting the contention that drinking urine is good for your health. I'm sure it's possible to draw a link between the practices and beneficial results, but that's more a question of correlation than causation. Really, the practices are just gross.

OK, OK, that report was commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society International and Born Free USA/Born Free Foundation. All of them horrible lefty animal-loving extremists.

@WagonersAbroad there's no mistaking the vast variety of needs. Just as there's no mistaking the poor industry pickup in reaction to it. But we want to do more than just watch how things play out; we want to help drive it in the right direction. What would you say is the right direction, especially after your triple of years on the road with kids?

Great to have your comments… and awesome to see experiential practices put into action, @Timmywink.

Three quick thoughts:

* Having spoken with loads of hoteliers, I'm not convinced that pigeonholing is a problem both because, based on their input, I don't see it happening (unless it really is the hotel's focus) and I don't see it mattering (as long as occupancy stays high). But accommodation concerns are a tight focus to take on family travel when, as you write, it's not what life and visiting new countries is about!

* I completely agree with you that the real trick is to come up with an approach that appeals to all takers, which is what multi-generational travel marketing is only beginning to tackle. There's plenty out there -- destinations, activities, services -- with built-in appeal to people of all ages. Challenging the traditional status quo so that the appeal is evident to families of all types is what we're examining here!

Hi @WorldTravelMom. I greatly appreciate your input here. And hope that we'll be able to work together on something more substantive and powerful that does indeed reach a broader audience -- not just the already-converted or even the regular consuming masses (as they're the ones who don't see themselves in the materials they find, just as you don't), but those that market to them. That's at the heart of this FTA Spotlight topic.

I believe there's value in the effort of the Family Travel Association to assemble many voices in a push to identify worst practices, compliment best practices and then help chart a way forward that doesn't oblige any travelers to numb themselves to anything or have to come up with counter arguments for closed minds' inadequacies.

Many thanks for this comment, @TravelBabbo. I too have patrolled ITB on several occasions in search of meaningful marketing, but I don't do it anymore. To tell the truth, I lose heart at trade shows like ITB. While the gathering of professionals and the opportunities to hear their wisdom are outstanding, any real manifestation of marketing savvy by destinations, hotels and operators is appallingly limited. How can there be such a disconnect -- a real chasm -- between everything that lots of smart people are talking about and its practical application?

"This is a bit like testing crystal ware with a cudgel and dismissing the former as too delicate. I believe it's wrong in premise, analysis and conclusion. And it paints with far too broad a brush to declare that 'Vacations of any kind are a waste of our inadequate free time and money.' It's tracing a bad result back to the presence of children, rather than the expectations of the parents or some troubling inadequacies of the tourism industry. The Family Travel Association's role is not to retreat from family travel challenges, but to seek collaborative solutions for overcoming them. Besides, as Paige Conner Totaro comments here: 'Practice makes perfect. And mistakes make memories.' "

In other words, while I too think I see what's at the heart of this article (and have had my fair share of frustrated experiences with my sons), I'm a little less forgiving than @PCTotaro is. I think that packaging matters a lot, to use @hitriddle's words. And so I'm writing a longer response that I hope to have finished and published soon.

@SonjaSwissLife the special emphasis of the essay (and, to a degree, of the Family Travel Association) on the U.S. is a reflection of the special intensity of the identified family travel market in the U.S. and the striking absence of diversity in how it is marketed. That being said, there is no attempt to limit the discussion to the situation in the U.S. Families all over the world are in motion and the more we make understand how to facilitate their efforts, the better.

Any one-size-fits-all approach to a complex scenario is foolish, especially when it is achingly evident just how tangled a once oversimplified concept has become.

Yes @PCTotaro, it's true that no two families have the same needs, but the point of this answer, and of the Family Travel Association's review of the topic, is to identify some of the most blatantly obvious ways in which old definitions of family have changed... and then to explore what is already being done and/or needs to be done to open our family travel tent flaps wide again and make everyone more welcome.

This excellent piece of writing and accompanying photographs is by the same pen/eye behind http://outbounding.org/articles/view/traditionalculturesproject-van-gujjar-project, which I also very highly recommend.

I think the jury's still out on this, as we don't have enough information about how it works and how it's anticipated some of the likely problems with dropping 700 do-gooders in any one place. Skift's got an article coming out soon (I've been told it will be Monday) in which I share some thoughts. Meanwhile, I'd like to see how fathom(TM) responds to the growing mass of pointed questions.

Thank you for sharing this @ronmader (Ron Mader). My heart goes out to the people of Nepal right now. The images and tales of the devastation -- human but also significant cultural loss -- are heartbreaking.

However, the costs and logistics of then trying to make available multiple simultaneous workshops are well beyond us at this stage in our development.

That being said, it is possible that individual workshop leaders or participants may take it upon themselves to share the proceedings. One such example is @travelingeditor (Dylan Lowe), who, in his new guise as @ripplemovement (The Ripple Movement) will be broadcasting his doings via periscope.tv. Keep an eye on #RipplesInNYC (in Twitter) for that.

If I hear of anything more, I will drop a note here.

As to the possibility of post-event Hangouts, sure! Let's see how things turn out!

Thanks @pandpvolunteer. Build it up stronger, don't tear it down! It's the whole #MendNotEnd approach, one that you and others with strong built-in responsible approaches to volunteer travel have made possible through action.